Given that there has been no evidence of fraud or other illegalities, it might be wondered why Trump and Scott pushed their lies so hard on the national stage. One obvious reason is that the untrue claim of voter fraud has been a stock talking point for the Republicans for a long time. As such, it makes sense that Trump and Scott would parrot this party line—it has become something Republicans just seem to say. Interestingly, both Trump and Scott made these accusations in the face of their own victories, so one could say that Trump and Scott said they won fraudulent elections. In the case of Trump, he was enraged that he had been thrashed in the popular vote while winning by the electoral college (something he had railed against in the past).

It should be noted that the Democrats have a narrative of voter suppression which they present at least as often as Republicans cry out about voter fraud. But, there is a difference: voter fraud is infinitesimal while voter suppression has a meaningful impact on elections. In the case of Scott, he was clearly worried that he might lose, which leads to a second likely reason.

Second, Scott had an excellent practical reason to raise the specter of fraud: there was a chance that he might lose the election. Presumably he hoped that this would benefit him in the realm of public opinion or otherwise yield some advantage in achieving victory—perhaps by ending the vote counting early. To be fair to Scott, Democrats bring up voter suppression when they are losing (or have lost). But, as noted before, Scott and Trump have never been able to provide evidence of voter fraud, but there is clear evidence of voter suppression. The most obvious examples in Florida are the racist law excluding felons from voting and Scott’s Kafkaesque process for restoring voting rights. Scott has openly claimed the process is arbitrary and the available information shows that Scott favored restoring voting rights to whites and Republicans. Florida has about 1.5 million felons who could vote, so Scott’s control over the restoration voting rights gave him considerable power over elections. As such, while fraud did not cost him the election, his control over felon’s voting rights helped him achieve victory.

Third, the deceitful narrative of fraud is used to “justify” various efforts aimed at voter suppression. By bringing up claims of voter fraud before a national audience, Trump and Scott can help fuel voter suppression across the country. The fact that they provide no evidence seems to be irrelevant, those that fear voter fraud are clearly motivated by emotion rather than evidence. When the Republicans try to suppress votes in the future, they can refer to the fraud that never was in Florida to help get laws passed and “justify” them to the public. This leads to the point of why crying fraud matters.

For those who believe that citizens should be able to freely exercise their just right to vote, using the specter of voter fraud to justify the suppression of voters would clearly be wrong. After all, it is a lie used to justify robbing citizens of a fundamental democratic right. In fact, the right to vote is the defining right of a democracy. There is also the obvious moral problem with lying.

It might be objected that cries of voter suppression are also damaging. On the one hand, it could be argued that such accusations could lower turnout and undermine faith in the system. On the other hand, voter suppression occurs and the efforts to counter voter suppression aim at encouraging people to vote and making it easier for legitimate voters to vote. As such, when people bring up voter suppression honestly and oppose it, they are helping democracy and not harming it.

There are also the facts that the laws that are supposed to be aimed at voter fraud are aimed at something that rarely happens and that they do not really address the fraud that does occur. As such, one has to infer that either the Republicans are stupidly and badly trying to stop a problem that is not really a problem with methods that do not work or they are trying to suppress Democratic voters. The best explanation seems clear.

Naturally, I am open to evidence and arguments against my views. If there is strong objective evidence of significant voter fraud and strong objective evidence that the methods used to address it are effective, then I will change my position. Also, if there is strong objective evidence that voter suppression is a myth and that there are no unreasonable barriers to voting, then I will change my position on voter suppression.

Yes, once they complete their sentence. If a person has done their time and paid their debt, then they should have their full rights restored. I do recognize that there are good arguments for having a delay before getting back the right to have a gun (for violent offenders). There is also the problem presented by sex offenders, especially for those convicted of crimes against children. Public opinion is such that they should be banned from certain areas such as schools, etc. On the one hand, I get the idea of taking precautions in the face of past offenses. On the other hand, I am morally uncomfortable (in the abstract) with perpetual restrictions/punishments. Naturally, I do not want people claiming that I’m fine with sexual predators being around kids; but the same view would need to be taken consistently with all offenders. So, financial crimes would need to come with restrictions on access to financial “zones.”

“Lack of found evidence does not entail a definitive lack of evidence. – Michael LaBossiere, November 16, 2016

“Given that there has been no evidence of fraud or other illegalities, it might be wondered why Trump and Scott pushed their lies so hard on the national stage. – Michael LaBossiere, November 19, 2016

My question is, “How is it, in this case and in your mind, that the lack of evidence of voter fraud proves that there is no voter fraud; enough so that you accuse Trump and Scott of lying?”

You have said yourself that a lack of found evidence does not prove that there is no evidence, and by extension, cannot prove that there is fraud, so how do you conclude that these men are lying?

You don’t have to answer that, I already know. You hate Trump, you hate Scott, and a mere allegation against them is all the proof you need.

Somehow, this all exists outside of the world of logic and reason for you, a world in which you live, a world in which you possess the highest academic degree.

I happen to agree with you on this point – that while not definitive proof, the lack of evidence of voter fraud is likely to show that there was none – but that is not in and of itself true. You said so yourself.

In fact, you cannot, with any kind of definitive proof, state that the opposite is true or false, can you? If I were to say“Despite the lack of evidence, it is highly likely that voter fraud has taken place in the state”,

you cannot refute that, can you? Oh, you could put up an argument, of course – “Yeah, but… there’s no evidence!” – but we’ve already established the validity of that statement. You cannot apply any form of deductive reasoning or critical thinking to arrive at any conclusion other than “it is likely”, or “that’s enough for me”.

So what is the lie?

“Trump says that people get in line and wear disguises, then go back to their cars and wear other disguises”

Well, I agree, that’s a pretty bizarre statement – but is it true?

“There is no evidence that that has happened”

Ah, well, now we’re getting somewhere. We have already established that the lack of discovered evidence is no indication that no evidence exists, haven’t we? So Trump’s statement is no more true or false than the allegations of voter fraud, isn’t it?

If you cannot prove that there was or was not voter fraud, and you cannot prove that people were or were not wearing disguises to vote, you cannot accuse Trump of lying. Period.

That’s called logic, Mike. It’s called reason.

But I know – you are wearing your “Partisan Hack” hat for this post, not your “I’m a PhD in Philosophy” hat.

Here’s the thing – in this case I probably agree with you on both counts – but not only do I fully expect Trump to say stuff like that (and it doesn’t matter to me), I also would not be a bit surprised if all of a sudden someone came forward and was able to prove voter fraud in Florida.

As for the racism comment, well, again – here’s the syllogism:

Premise 1: Florida, like many other states, has laws against felons voting
Premise 2: A majority of the convicted felons are black
Conclusion: Therefore, this is a Republican plot designed to disenfranchise black people.

(btw … the “black laws” during Reconstruction, were all established by Democrats. The “RINO” Republican president, Andrew Johnson, sided with the Southern Democrats, and the Republicans impeached him for it. You can look that one up.)

Why don’t you give that argument to your logic class, and have them write an essay about it?

I agree that there could be fraud that has not been found. However, when arguing that X is the case, the burden of proof is generally on the person who claims that X. So, when Trump says there is fraud and there is no evidence available, I agree that there might be some that has not been found. But, when assessing claims, one must go with the evidence at hand. To use the obvious analogy: in court, if the defense attorney claimed that the Russians mind controlled her client to commit the crime, they would be expected to provide evidence. The fact that it is not impossible and their might be evidence that is unknown is not enough.

Since Trump claims there was fraud and provides no evidence and people went looking hard for that evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that Trump is lying (unless he believes what he says, in which case he is just wrong). The fact that there might be evidence that no one has seen or found does not entail that I cannot say Trump is lying. Now, you would embrace the requirement of absolute certainty-in which case only contradictions could be claimed to be lies. But this would be absurd.